Manties Manties Manties
I hate the word “panties”. I find it patronizing and, in a way, perverse. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a prude, and this isn’t about people’s underwear being yucky. It seems like one of those personal, pointless hatreds until you realize there’s no male equivalent to the word. Why do we need two different words for men’s and women’s underwear? Why, when we’re talking about women’s knickers, do we even need a special word at all? In the end, they’re the same thing as men’s underwear, they serve the same function. Giving them the name “panties”, then, seems to have the aim of adding some other function to the garment. And, since we’re talking about women here, in my mind it’s a sexualizing function.
Think I’m being a knee-jerk feminist here and that “panties” exists only to make a necessary distinction between the male garment and the female garment? Then why do we accept “underwear” for both genders? In common speech both men and women refer to their boxers and bikinis as underwear. When I tell you that George is putting on his underwear I don’t think there’s any confusion that what we’re talking about is going to be men’s underwear of one kind or another and not women’s. If it _is_ women’s underwear he’s putting on, we usually say it’s “women’s”, “his wife’s”, or “his sister’s” that he’s wearing.
The “-ties” ending of the word especially calls to mind a recent article in Netscape’s cyber-fluff news that advised new parents against giving their daughters names ending in “ie” or “y”, as surveys found those names to curse their bearers with an easy, party-girl association. What reputation does it give our underwear? Kristi, Stephanie and Lindzy are happy to show you their panties. The real proof that the term serves a sexualizing function comes in the standard argument for its use: that `Underwear’ is just too clunky. Too utilitarian. Too boring. Not exciting (titillating, risque) enough. Not sexy. Which means we think that women’s underwear has to be sexy, and we call it “panties” to make it so.
The term is patronizing at best. “Panties” is a diminuitive of “pants”; it to me it seems best used in a sentence like “You just go put on your little panties, hon”. Anyone wearing panties is not to be taken seriously. How can you be taken seriously when what you’re wearing under your clothes sounds like the name of that girl who had a loose reputation in high school? None of the guys treated her with much respect. And think about the fact that panties sounds ridiculous when applied to what men wear. CEO George has on Calvin Klein panties under his Hugo Boss suit. Again, don’t get me wrong, this isn’t even about me wanting to deny that underwear can be sexy. It’s the next step away from naked, it can even be better-than-naked sometimes. Men and women can both be sexy in their underwear, but men don’t have to use a patronizing, diminuized term whether they’re talking about throwing theirs in the wash, lazing around the house in them, or gettin it on in them. Neither should women. And neither do women. I don’t get much of a thrill out of calling my underpants panties. I don’t hear women using it very often. So the word really does exist just for you, you man who really really wants there to be something naughty about my knickers, whether my approval is involved or not.
I’d like to give women’s underwear the right to not always be sexy, to just be underwear. Especially when I hear the little six-year-old girl in the toilet-training doll commercial proudly tell her dolly (and, by association, her toddler sister) that soon she’ll be able to wear “real big-girl panties”.
I propose the term “manties” to make things a little more even. These are what guys wear. Use it when needed, or just cut it out with the “panties” business.
June 26th, 2005 at 1:29 am
Hey Sly, (is it still okay to call you Sly?)
I just discovered your blog. Cool. I’ll have to read the earlier posts sometime, and see what other sorts of thoughts you share with the world.
I just wanted to say that I completely agree with your issue with the term “panties.” I’ve always been struck by the term. It’s always felt like something only the underwear of pre-pubescent girls should be called. Barbies. Horsies. Panties. I’m not necessarily a prude (well, maybe I am, but I’m not ready to admit it yet), but I’ve often felt uncomfortable just verbalizing the word. I find it difficult to use the word and not experience a faint sense of pejorative/silly/middle-school opposite-gender taboo shyness.
I don’t think we need the term “manties,” but we ought to have a replacement word for panties that’s non-sexy/silly, something similar to underwear, but more specific. Something like blouse perhaps (although I guess you run into similar problems since there isn’t a unique male equivalent to blouse)
Notwithstanding the above, I must confess, however, that I have a bit of panty fetish. I find the concept of panties quite sexy. Can I be a full-blooded male and still be a true feminist?
July 3rd, 2005 at 1:43 am
OK, here I go trying to see if I should start reading your guys’ friendster blogs, and the first entry I look at is about panties? That is pretty funny.
I think words are just words, until someone uses them in context, and then you can slap the person or whatever. Names are quite different. Names stick and color you, without them having anything to say about it. It’s kind of a stupid example, but the one place most people have heard my name was Young Frankenstein. It’s kind of amusing to watch them struggle with the Egor/Igor dilemma =).
Personally, I like the word pantalones. It has a nice “umph” to it.
Another funny word is “femhole” as opposed to “manhole”. I think that one backfired on its creators something awful.
July 3rd, 2005 at 10:19 pm
Words may indeed just be words, but each one comes into being to fill a particular hole in our lexicon. Why did someone have to make up panties when there was already underwear? That’s what I’m trying to get at. And certainly, people use words in whatever context they want to give them their own intended meaning. Or, they use particular words to bring something new to the context in which they’re being used. I guess I just don’t like the meaning that panties brings- that is, a sexual one.
July 5th, 2005 at 9:15 am
And I’ve gotta say, I like “pantalones”, too.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Hello cousin.
Like you, my name does in fact fall in the –y/ -ie ending family and amusingly enough, I spent most of my time in college and immediately after attempting to shed my easy, party-girl rep. To think, mom thought “Emily” would have literary connotations!
Part of me was compelled to respond “Don’t get your panties in a bunch.” However, I feel a pressing obligation to express my shared hatred of “panties”. I detest the word and all it connotes.
I’m always revolted by the semi-annual Bra and Panty event at a undergarment retailer. The massive advertising budget of this company means I will see & hear this word in regular rotation in all media for at least 1 month of every year. In fact, there is a level of panty comfort that makes this girly girl uncomfortable with entering this establishment.
For me, panties falls in the same grouping as another colorful P-word I absolutely detest. Neither word should be used with any frequency unless you are named Doreen, are a member of a fraternity and a participating in a rite of passage raid, or have had/ or plan to have relations with Pat O’Brien.
Fortunately, my mom hates the P-words too. As a child I struggled to say underwear – quite a mouthful really. Looking back, panties certainly would not have been an appropriate synonym for a 5 year old. No responsible parent would encourage a child to call her underwear panties if underwear were difficult to pronounce…it’s just dirty.
The solution in the Brown family – call them “bunders” or “underbunders”.
I still often use the term. It’s impossible to feel inappropriate with this term. Give it a shot.
Emblee
August 29th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
yay Embly! Thanks for the alternative. Sorry it took me so long to see your post!